Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

VIII. The Distribution of Large-Scale Industry

Besides the concentration of production in very large establishments, the
concentration of production in separate factory industrial centres and the
different types of factory centres are also important in characterising
large-scale machine industry. Unfortunately, our factory statistics not
only supply unsatisfactory and incomparable material, but arrange it in a
far from adequate manner. For example, in contemporary publications the
distribution of industry is shown only by gubernias (and not by towns and
uyezds as was done in the best publications of the 60s, which, in
addition, illustrated the distribution of factory industry with maps). But
in order to present an accurate picture of the distribution of large-scale
industry, the data must be taken for separate centres, i.e., for separate
towns, industrial settlements, or groups of industrial settlements
situated close together; gubernias or uyezds are too big as territorial
units.[1]
In view of
this, we thought it
advisable to compute from the Directory for 1879 and 1890 data on
the concentration of our factory industry in the most important
centres. The table given in the appendix (Appendix III) contains data for
103 factory centres in European Russia, centres in which about half the
total number of factory workers are
concentrated.[2]

The table shows three main types of factory centres in Russia. 1) The
towns. These take first place, being distinguished for the greatest
concentration of both workers and establishments. Particularly outstanding
in this respect are the large towns. In each of the metropolitan cities
(including the suburbs) about 70,000 factory workers are concentrated;
Riga has 16,000, Ivanovo-Voznesensk 15,000 and Bogorodsk had 10,000 in
1890; the other towns have fewer than 10,000 each. It is sufficient to
take a cursory glance at the official figures on factory workers in
several large cities (Odessa—8,600 in 1890, Kiev—6,000, Rostov
on-Don—5,700, etc.) to be convinced that these figures are
ridiculously low. The instance of St. Petersburg given above shows how
many times these figures would have to be multiplied for the correct
number of industrial workers in these centres to be obtained. In addition
to the towns, the suburbs must also be indicated. The suburbs of large
towns are very often big industrial centres, but from the data we possess
we have been able to separate only one such centre, the suburbs of
St. Petersburg, where in 1890 the number of workers was 18,900. Several of
the settlements in the Moscow Uyezd included in our table are also
actually
suburbs.[3]

The second type of centre is the factory villages, which are particularly
numerous in the Moscow, Vladimir and Kostroma gubernias (of the 63 most
important rural centres included in our table, 42 are in these
gubernias). These centres are headed by the township of Orekhovo-Zuyevo
(in the table, Orekhovo and Zuyevo are given separately, but they are
actually one centre); as to the number of workers, it comes second only to
the capitals (26,800 in
1890).[4]
In the
three gubernias indicated, as also in the Yaroslavl and Tver gubernias,
the majority of the rural factory centres are formed by huge textile mills
(cotton-spinning and weaving, linen, wool-weaving, etc.). Formerly, there
were almost always work-distributing offices in such villages, i.e.,
centres of capitalist manufacture, which held sway over masses of
neighbouring hand weavers. In those cases where the statistics do not
confuse home workers with factory workers, the data on the development of
such centres clearly reveal the growth of large-scale machine industry
which attracts thousands of peasants from the surrounding areas and
transforms them into factory workers. Further, a considerable number of
rural factory centres are formed by large mining and metallurgical plants
(Kolomna Works in the village of Bobrovo, Yuzovka Works, Bryansk Works,
and others); the majority of these are classified under mining, and for
that reason were not included in our table. The beet sugar refineries
situated in the villages and townships of the south-western gubernias also
form quite a number of village factory centres; for our example we have
taken one of the largest, the township of Smela, in Kiev Gubernia.

The third type of factory centre is the “handicraft” villages,
the largest establishments in which are often classified as
“factories and works.” In our table, the villages of Pavlovo,
Vorsma, Bogorodskoye and Dubovka serve as examples of such centres. A
comparison between the number of factory workers in such centres and the
total of their industrial population was made above in the case of
Bogorodskoye village.

If we group the centres given in our table according to number of workers
in each centre and according to the type of centre (town or village), we
get the following data (see next page).

The table shows that in 1879 there were 356,000 workers (out of a total of
752,000) concentrated in these 103 centres, while in 1890 there were
451,000 (out of 876,000). Accordingly, the number of workers increased by
26.8%, whereas in the large factories in general (of 100 and more workers)
the increase was only 22.2%, while the total number of workers increased
over this period by only 16.5%. Thus the workers are being concentrated in
the largest centres. In 1879, only 11 centres had over 5,000 workers; in
1890 there were 21. Particularly striking is the increase in the number of
centres with from 5,000 to 10,000 workers. This occurred for two reasons:
1) because of the exceptional growth of factory industry in the South
(Odessa, Rostov-on-Don, etc.); and 2) because of the growth of the factory
villages in the central gubernias.

A comparison between the urban and the rural centres shows that in 1890
the latter embraced about one-third of the total number of
workers in the leading centres (152,000 out of 451,000). For the whole of
Russia this proportion should be higher, i.e., more than one-third of the
factory workers must be outside of the towns. Indeed, all the outstanding
urban centres are included in our table, whereas rural centres with
several hundred workers each, apart from those we have mentioned, exist in
exceedingly large numbers (settlements with glass-works, brickworks,
distilleries, beet-sugar refineries, etc.). Mining workers are also to be
found mainly outside of towns. One may consider, therefore, that of the
total number of factory and mining workers in European Russia not less
(and maybe more) than half are to
be found outside of towns. This conclusion is very important, for it shows
that the industrial population in Russia greatly exceeds the
urban
population.[5]

If we now turn to the pace at which factory industry develops in urban and
in rural centres, we see that it is undoubtedly faster in the latter. The
number of urban centres with 1,000 workers and over in the period taken
grew very slightly (from 32 to 33), while the number of rural centres in
this category grew very considerably (from 38 to 53). The number of
workers in the 40 urban centres grew by only 16.1 % (from 257,000 to
299,000), while in the 63 rural centres it grew by 54.7% (from 98,500 to
152,500). The average number of workers per urban centre rose only from
6,400 to 7,500, whereas the average number per rural centre rose from
1,500 to 2,400. Thus, factory industry evidently tends to spread with
particular rapidity outside the towns, to create new factory centres and
to push them forward faster than the urban centres, and to penetrate deep
into remote rural areas that would seem to be isolated from the world of
big capitalist enterprises. This supremely important circumstance shows
us, firstly, the rapidity with which large-scale machine industry
transforms social and economic relationships. What formerly took ages to
take shape now springs up in a decade or so. We have only to compare, for
instance, the formation of such non-agricultural centres as the
“handicraft villages” indicated in the previous
chapter—Bogorodskoye, Pavlovo, Kimry, Khoteichi, Velikoye and
others—with the process of the establishment of new centres by the
modern factory, which at once draws the rural population by the thousands
into industrial
settlements.[6]
Social division of labour
receives a tremendous impetus. Mobility of the population replaces the
former immobility and isolation as a necessary condition of economic
life. Secondly, the transfer of factories into the rural districts shows
that capitalism is surmounting the obstacles which the social-estate
seclusion of the peasant community creates for it, and is even deriving
benefit from this seclusion. While the erection of factories in the
countryside involves quite a few inconveniences, it does, however,
guarantee a supply of cheap labour. The muzhik is not allowed to go to the
factory, so the factory goes to the
muzhik.[7]
The muzhik
lacks complete freedom (thanks to the collective-responsibility system and
the obstacles to his leaving the community) to seek the employer who gives
the greatest advantage; but the employer has a perfect way of seeking out
the cheapest worker. Thirdly, the large number of rural factory centres
and their rapid growth proves groundless the opinion that the Russian
factory is isolated from the mass of the peasantry, that it exercises
little influence over them. The specific character
of the distribution of our factory industry shows, on the contrary, that
its influence is very widespread, and that it is far from being confined
to the walls of the
factory.[8]
On the
other hand, however, this specific character of the distribution of our
factory industry cannot but result in a temporary retardation of the
transforming influence of large-scale machine industry on the population
it employs. By converting the backwoodsman-muzhik into a factory worker
at one stroke, the factory may for a time ensure for itself a
supply of the cheapest, least developed and least exacting
“hands.” It is obvious, however, that such retardation cannot
go on for long, and that it is purchased at the price of a still greater
expansion of the area subjected to the influence of large-scale machine
industry.

Notes

[1]
“. . . In the uyezds (of Moscow Gubernia) the factories and works
are far from evenly distributed: in highly industrialised uyezds side by
side with localities which, because of the more or less considerable
concentration there of factory establishments, can be called real factory
centres, one comes across entire volosts almost wholly devoid of factory
industry; and, on the contrary, in uyezds generally poor in factories and
works, there are districts with a more or less considerable development of
one industry or another; side by side with handicraft cottages and
workrooms larger establishments have arisen possessing all the attributes
of large-scale production.” (Statistical Returns for Moscow
Gubernia, Section of sanitation Statistics, vol. IV, Sec.1, Moscow,
1890, p. 141.) This publication, the
best in contemporary factory
statistical literature, illustrates the distribution of large-scale
industry with the aid of a detailed map. The only thing lacking for a
complete picture of the distribution of factory industry is a
classification of centres according to the number of factories, workers
and total output.—Lenin

[2]
The table includes only establishments with a minimum output of 2,000
rubles, and of the flour-mills only the steam-powered ones. Outside
workers are excluded wherever it has been stated that they are included
among factory workers; such exclusions are indicated by an asterisk
(*). The industrial boom of 1879 could not but affect these data, too.—Lenin

[3]
“. . . The large village of Cherkizovo in the vicinity of Moscow is,
according to the local inhabitants, one large factory, and is a
continuation
of Moscow in the literal sense of the word. . . . Nearby,
beyond the Semyonovskaya Tollgate . . . again a large number of diverse
factories are clustered. . . . At no great distance from here we see the
village of Izmailovo, with its weaving sheds, and the enormous Izmailovo
Textile Mill.” That is to the north of Moscow. To the south,
“beyond the Serpukhov Tollgate, what we meet first is the immense
Danilov Textile Mill, in itself a whole township. . . . Further on, at no
great distance from each other, are a whole ring of large brick
works,” etc. (Statistical Returns, IV, Sec. I,
pp. 143-144). Thus, the concentration of factory industry is actually more
considerable than we were able to indicate in our table.—Lenin

[4]
In 1879, only 10,900 were recorded here. Evidently, different methods of
registration were employed.—Lenin

[5]
The population census of January 28, 1897, fully confirmed this
conclusion. The urban population throughout the Empire was given as
16,828,395 persons of both sexes. The commercial and industrial
population, as we showed above, is 21.7 millions. (Note to 2nd
edition.—Ed.)—Lenin

[6]
“In the township of Krivoi Rog the population grew between 1887 and
1896 from 6,000 to 17,000, at the Kamenka Works of the Dnieper
Company—from 2,000 to 18,000; near Druzhkovka station, where as late
as 1892 there was nothing but station buildings, there is now a settlement
of 6,000 people; at the Gdantsevka Works there
are nearly 3,500 people;
near Konstantinovka station, where a number of works have been erected, a
new settlement is being formed; Yuzovka is now a town with a population of
29,000. . . . On the sandy wasteland at Nizhne-Dnieprovsk, near
Ekaterinoslav, where a number of factories are now situated, a new
settlement has sprung up with a population of 6,000. The works at Mariupol
has attracted a new population of 10,000, etc. Populated centres are
springing up around the coal mines” (Vestnik Finansov,
1897, No. 50). According to the Russkiye Vedomosti (November 21,
1897, No. 322), the Bakhmut Uyezd Zemstvo Assembly has filed an
application for the status of townships to be granted to commercial
settlements with a population of 1,000 and the status of towns to those
with a population of 5,000. . . . “There is to be observed here
. . . an unparalleled growth of commercial and factory
settlements. . . . Altogether, there are by now as many as thirty
settlements, which have been springing up and growing at a truly American
pace. . . . In Volyntsevo, where a huge metallurgical works with 2 blast
furnaces, a foundry and a rolling mill is nearing completion and will be
started in the beginning of November, there is a population of from 5,000
to 6,000, which has settled on what only recently was almost uninhabited
steppe. With the influx of a factory population we also observe an influx
of traders, handicraftsmen and small industrialists in general, who
anticipate an easy and rapid sale to the working population of all kinds
of goods.”—Lenin

[8]
Let us recall the fact cited above (Chapter III, § IV, p. 208, footnote)
of the influence exerted by the mining industry in Bakhmut Uyezd,
Ekaterinoslav Gubernia, on the local agricultural
system.—Characteristic also are the common complaints of landowners
about the factories “spoiling” the population.—Lenin